valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:17:44 +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire said: > >> So the wait_event_timeout condition here ends up being (empty || skip) >> but what is the point of puting this code into the parameter list of >> wait_event_timeout() ? >> >> Would it not be equivalent to: >> >> bool empty; >> ... >> >> spin_lock_bh(&ar->htt.tx_lock); >> empty = (ar->htt.num_pending_tx == 0); >> spin_unlock_bh(&ar->htt.tx_lock); >> >> skip = (ar->state == ATH10K_STATE_WEDGED) || >> test_bit(ATH10K_FLAG_CRASH_FLUSH, >> &ar->dev_flags); >> >> ret = wait_event_timeout(ar->htt.empty_tx_wq, (empty || skip), >> ATH10K_FLUSH_TIMEOUT_HZ); >> >> What am I missing here ? > > Umm... a Signed-off-by: and formatting it as an actual patch? :) > > Seriously - you're right, it's ugly code that needs fixing...
Huh? The condition needs to be re-evaluated every time the process wakes up. Evaluating it once and then reusing that result is not the same. Something elseis supposed to modify ar->htt.num_pending_tx, ar->state or ar->dev_flags while we are waiting. Bjørn _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
